Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In another thread about working 60 hours a week, I came up with a theory that I want to put to the test. Theoretically two companies are offering you the same dream job at the same pay rate and offering the same benefits. Company A is offering you hourly at 40 hours a week with no overtime at a total of 60K a year gross while Company B is offering you 60K a year in salary but you are exempt from overtime pay and will work on average 50 to 60 hours a week.
What a silly poll. Of course everyone is going to choose the job with shorter hours, all other things being equal.
Here is a quick poll for our readers: would you rather be given a diamond necklace or a beating with a lead pipe
But that's the point. I'm just trying to show that if the exempt salary and the hourly wage produce the same cost, guess what people will choose to work less because they effectively get a raise. People in the thread that this comes off of, don't exactly realize that.
But that's the point. I'm just trying to show that if the exempt salary and the hourly wage produce the same cost, guess what people will choose to work less because they effectively get a raise. People in the thread that this comes off of, don't exactly realize that.
Yes it is amazing that alot of people do not realize this. Good point
- What if Company B was a more prestigious firm and the prospective employee was under the impression that it would look better on his/her resume? This is under the assumption that the employee is an ambitious younger hire who plans to jump ship in 2-5 years
- Perhaps the employee is relatively young and decides that the added work at Company B will help add accomplishments on his/her resume or CV. Again, suppose they plan on jumping ship in 2-5 years with a more boosted resume.
Of course in both scenarios I am adding subjective benefits that won't necessarily be applicable to everyone and would arguably change the terms of the poll. I also have not read the other thread: This one just happened to have caught my interest while I was browsing.
My opinion is that excessive overtime work without corresponding compensation is not sustainable in the long run unless the employee has a low regard for his/her own health and perhaps if the employer has a habit of running sweat shops.
Of course maybe job B has great benefits, no layoffs and is close to home while job A is two hours away, high risk of death or injury and they constantly lay off employees.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
